Techdirt. Stories filed under "rejections" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "rejections"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:56:19 PDT Apple Feels Reporting Drone Strikes 'Objectionable And Crude' And Rejects App Zachary Knight http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120830/14470520223/apple-feels-reporting-drone-strikes-objectionable-crude-rejects-app.shtml
One creative iPhone developer, Josh Begley, took the time to create an app that sought out news articles about drone strikes. When it would find one, it would send a push notification to the owner of the iPhone and then display a Google map of the area with a push pin of the location of the strike. He had hoped to have it released in the wild by now, but Apple keeps rejecting his application.
It’s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program’s New York-based developer. The company’s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia “not useful.” Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there’s this crude content problem.
It's this last rejection that has Josh scratching his head. How can a news aggregating application be in any way crude or objectionable? Yes, I know that many people feel that news reports from the mainstream media could easily be classified as such, but that is beside the point. This app provides a useful service for those who want to keep abreast of the latest news regarding drone strikes. It doesn't show graphic images or other caricatures of the attacks, merely a push pin and a link to the story. If it is the content that is objectionable, he may just turn to a less strict operating system for the next version.
Begley is about at his wits end over the iOS version of Drones+. “I’m kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I’m supposed to do,” Begley said. The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.’ secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley’s thinking about whether he’d have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.
Its this kind of rejection of an interesting and thought provoking app that will turn people away from walled gardens. We talked recently about Microsoft's moves toward further locking down Windows resulting in developers seeking the more open alternative of Linux. The same will happen with the iPhone. As more developers continue to have their apps rejected with little to no context, those developers will become much more frustrated with the whole process and leave for Android. Is this really the lesson that Apple wants young developers taking from this and similar experiences?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> reporting-the-news-is-bad http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120830/14470520223 Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:37:00 PST Shouldn't The Patent Office Be Able To Reject A Bad Patent Application For Real? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/03321312283/shouldnt-patent-office-be-able-to-reject-bad-patent-application-real.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/03321312283/shouldnt-patent-office-be-able-to-reject-bad-patent-application-real.shtml cloud-based video games. You can see the actual patent (7,849,491), if you'd like to dig into the details.

However, rather than dig into the specifics on this particular patent, I did want to dig into one somewhat offhand comment that Dean Takahashi made in his writeup of this patent over at VentureBeat, where he gets in a little dig at the Patent Office:
it was originally filed in December, 2002... The patent was granted last week, showing just how far behind the patent office is in acknowledging inventions.
Similarly, in the WSJ article where OnLive's Steve Perlman claims this is a "pivotal patent," he also complains about how slow the patent office is, and how annoying it was that he had to wait so long to get this patent.

Now, I'm not known for standing up for the Patent Office on much, and everyone seems to agree that the USPTO has a huge backlog that it takes them a while to get through, but the implication here is that if you just submit an application, you'll have to wait 8 years to get that patent approved. That's not really fair or accurate. I went and looked at the history of this particular patent and it's a lot more complicated than that. First of all, while it was initially filed in 2002, the application wasn't actually complete until April of 2003. Then, it appears that a whole bunch of additional information was filed over the years -- which is perfectly fine (as new things come out, you're supposed to file such information disclosure statements), but each of those need to be reviewed as well.

But what's a lot more telling is that the patent was "rejected" by the patent examiner not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times before it was finally approved. However, the way the patent system works is that there's no such thing as a real rejection of a patent application. Even if there is something called a "final rejection" (the second rejection here was officially a "final rejection"), that's clearly misnamed, as the applicant is able to keep requesting new examinations, perhaps with adjustments to the patent, or after the applicant (or, more likely, a patent attorney they hired) argues that the patent should be approved.

So, perhaps it's not just that the patent office is "behind" on "acknowledging inventions," it's that patent applicants can just keep trying and trying and trying over and over and over again until they finally convince the examiner to approve the patent. Of course, all of this does contribute to the actual backlog -- because each time the examiner has to deal with a "rejected" application request for another examination, and hear them out on why it should be approved, or review the changes, that's time that could be spent reviewing a different patent application.

What I still don't understand is why we still let the system work this way. I can understand being able to make your case as to why a patent should be approved after an examiner initially rejects it -- and perhaps potentially an opportunity for an appeal -- but why do we let the system be so open ended? And, to be clear, I'm not saying if this particular patent is a "bad patent." I really don't know (though, I assume some of you may have some opinions on that). I'm just pointing out that, contrary to the claim in that article, the delay here might not have just been about a slow patent office, but about the fact that the patent was "rejected" so many times, and each time OnLive was able to come back and get another crack at the apple...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> just-a-thought http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101215/03321312283